St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-06
that at 90 cents per car they cannot make
much more than enough to keep body and
soul together.
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
The Tax Title lniquity.

| afforded by the recent decision rendered by
the supreme court of Minnesota in the case
! of Chauncey against Was.
! The facts as stated N an evening paper are
| briefly as follows: 'Cordelia Was bad paid
| taxes regularly on piece of property in St.
| Louis county and held the receipts therefor
! but in one instance there was q failure on the
! part of the states officer to mark the property
| tax paid Subsequently the state through its
officers, who had failed to do their duty, Gd-
vertised and sold this property for the same
tax. already paid, to c. C. Chauncey,'' and
| thereafter Chauncey, on the strength of the
! alleged title, commenced an action to diSpOS-
sess Cordoba Was of her property. This ac-
| ton the supreme court of the state has sus-
tanned, awarding the property to Chauncey,
| thus establishing the infamous doctrine that
though 4 citizen may have obeyed every die
| tate Of prudence and demand of law the state
| Though its officers and its courts may wan
| tonly divest that law-abiding citizen of the
fruits of his industry and turn the same over
] to the taX-title Vnlture in defiance of every
principle of justice, decency or even law, ex-
cept such moety thereof as emauateS from
| three out OF the i've judges of the supreme
| court of Minnesota.
| Judges Carlozo and Barnard, in the palm
| lest days of their malodorous official career,
| IN all probability never rendered u decision
| less in keeping with the simplest dictates of
| honesty, decency and law as understood by
! the average court and citizen throughout the
country.
The decisions of the supreme court of Ohio
| upon the Scott law have brought that court
| into such disrepute that il is said even Min
| nesota judges have been heard TO mark,
tell me the politics of the court and III tell
| you what weight to attach to its DECISION
1t is sincerely to be hoped that the day may
be far distant when the courts OF Ohio will be
| tempted to return the compliment by remark
! ing OF the tex decisions of the supreme courts
/ OF Minnesota, tell me who owned the tax
| titles and I'll tell you what prompted the de-
cision.' -
| 1t is legal truism admitted by every court
| III The Union THAT q principal is bound by
! the acts of the agent exercised within the
| scope Of his authority" also that any act
which the agent by his power-in this case
| the statute-was not authorized to perform is
void" This being established, it follows
tlrst-Ihat the state, having an officer author
| lZed to receive and receipt for taxes. who,
| In conformity with law, has received and re-
! celpted for all the taxes due on d piece Of
| property, is estopped from taking any advan-
| tage OF the subsequent error Of that official in
| failing to mark or credit such property tax
| paid upon his books Second-Sincc the law
only authorized the sale Of property for taxes
| due and unpaid at the time Of such sale-and
in the,case of GOrdeia Was there being no tax
| due and unpaid, as even the supreme court
| admltS-it follows that all the acts resulting
in the sale, as we'll as the deed itself, are null
| and void and in this view Judges Berry and
| Vanderburgh concur in rendering their MI
nority decision.
While it is not expected decisions from the
supreme court of the United States, or of
ether states, will have any weight with the
mighty (?) intellectS that labOred to bring
forth the majority decision in chancery
against Wass, it is but just to show that the
views of Judges Berry and Vanderburgh, as
expressed in the minority opiniou, are in
keeping with honesty and law as interpreted
BY other courts.
In Randall VS.. Daily the supreme court of
Wisconsin decided that "a tax deed can give
no title to, land where the owner has pre-
viously made payment of the assessed amount
with interest and COSTS See % Northwest
ern Reporter, 35S.
In Iowa the supreme court, in December
last, de cided that it was not even necessary
for the party paying such tax to produce the
receipt. IAN entry on the stub of county
treasurer's tax receipt book, in the absence
Of the receipt itself, is primary and sufficient
evidence of the taxes as noted therein, and is
sufficient to overcome the presumption of
non-paymeEts raised by Il tax deed" See 80
Northwestern Reporter, 6.
The United States circuit court for the dis
trict of Maine, in the case of Hodgdon VS..
Burleigh, Federal Reporter, Ill, decided
that "a tax is void unless all the taxes under
! which the sale is made are Valid Yet the
supreme court of Minnesota has decided that
sale made where there are no taxes due, or
even levied, will deprive the owner Of his
property.
The United States circuit court for the dis
trlct OF Minnesota, in Gordon VS.. Shedrer, 3
Federal Reporter, 105 is u little nearer home.
I'm Minnesota Il tax deel is not prima facie
evidence of title unless it be first shown that
the county auditor had authority to make the
deed And, in the case of Cordelia Was. no
tax being due, the auditor could not lawfully
sell or deed the land.
TIE United States supreme court says:
LAX sales must be conducted in conformity
with law and with entire fairness" State VS..
Maxwell, Wallace, 269. IF any of the stat
utory requirements are neglected no title
passes" McClung vs. Ross, Wheaton, 1l6;
Raukendorf, VS.. Taylor Peters, $40;
| Thatcher vs. Powell, Wheaton, 1l9.
1t certainly is not in conformity with law
| or entire fairness to sell land for taxes when
| no tax Is due, and in such case it follows the
greatest, the most substantial requisite to the
| legality thereof was neglected in the sale by
the state of the Was property, to-wit, that
some tax should have been due. where an
| individual claims land under a tax sale he
must show that the substantial requisites of
! the law have been observed" United States
supreme court in Rankendorff VS.. Taylor,
| Peters, $40, and Boardman VS.. Reed, 6 Peters,
32S
This c. G. Chauncey could not and cannot
| show.
| So much for the decisions, which could be
| the court advance for arriving at the views
| expressed in Chauncey VS.. Wass? Is there
any law OF this state that by its terms says "a
! pei son who has once paid tax due on prop
! erty shall thereafter be deSpoiled thereof by
| sale of the property for the selfsame taX?'' If
| so, is there any one-outside of the majority
| of the supreme bench OF ADMINISTRATIVE
| suppOSeS the lawmakers intended to enact
| statute so contrary TO every principle of law,
| so repugnant to every sense of honor? What,
then, in the light of the decisions of other
| courts, was the duty of your supreme bench
| in the premises? Let US see:
THE court ascertainS the meaning from
| the words and subject matter to which the
| statute relates, and Restraints its operation
within narrower limits than literal meaning
| would extend to cases the legislature did not
! design to include" Brewer VS.. Rlougher, II
| Peters, United States supreme court, l7S.
| Aud again IA law requiring incompatible
| things must be changed to give sense of legis-
lature.' Huidekoper VS.. Blougher Cranch
| Z. S. Sc.
taken most strongly against the lawmakers"
| U. S. VS.. Hill 3 Cranch 4I3.
AT no stage OF the proceedings resulting in
| the fraudulent sale to Cnauncey did the law re-
| quire personal notice to be served on Cor
| della Was hence she had nOsoppOrtunity TO
| defend her lawful property rights. Suppose,
| however, she had accidentally become aware
| of the facts before the sale or deed by the
auditor, what was her remedy? She could
not enioin the auditor from selling the land
or making deed, since the court following
! the rule in such actions must have held:
First-That the tax having been already paid,
the auditor could not lawfully sell the land.
Secondhand any sale or deed so made by
| the auditor was void and could not constitute
| a cloud over the title of Waas, hence the suit
must be dismissed, so that no opportunity
would be afforded her to defend her property
before the sale or deed, and by reason OF that
fact she must be debarred the privilege of
defending after the fraudulent sale or con-